Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Democratic Party’

Day 1 of New Campaign: Biden Chucks Obama Under the Nearest Bus


Commentary By Malachi Bailey | Published April 26, 2019 at 8:56am | Modified April 26, 2019 at 8:57am

Former Vice President Joe Biden finally announced his decision to run for president, and he threw former President Barack Obama under the bus on the first day.

Biden joined the crowded field of 2020 Democrats on Thursday and immediately received praise from Obama, but he stopped short of endorsing his former running mate, according to CNBC.

“President Obama has long said that selecting Joe Biden as his running mate in 2008 was one of the best decisions he ever made,”Obama spokesperson Katie Hill said in a statement.

“He relied on the Vice President’s knowledge, insight, and judgment throughout both campaigns and the entire presidency. The two forged a special bond over the last 10 years and remain close today.”

But Obama didn’t explicitly endorse Biden, and that’s because Biden doesn’t want Obama’s endorsement.

“I asked President Obama not to endorse,” Biden said Thursday. “Whoever wins this nomination should win it on their own merits.”

Obviously, Biden’s claim that he wants to win the race on his own merits is questionable. Any candidate who wants to become the next president would accept an endorsement if it would help his or her cause. Obama is extremely popular among the far left, so it’s confusing why Biden would tell him not to endorse.

However, Obama is not particularly liked outside of far-left circles, which could be the key to understanding why Biden denied a potential endorsement. It seems as if Biden is trying to distance himself from the former president in order to make a broader appeal to the American people.

The options right now for moderate Democrats are pretty slim. Other than Biden, the front-runners are far left, including Sens. Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren. Biden will definitely need a way to differentiate himself from his progressive competition, and distancing himself from Obama is a good start to wooing more moderate Democrats. Besides, radical Democrats don’t like Biden anyway. He’s too white, too old and doesn’t have the right gender.

Regardless of Biden’s strategy, it was probably deeply insulting for Obama to have Biden ask him not to endorse his candidacy. Obama’s legacy is stained to the point where his endorsement isn’t even wanted.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Malachi Bailey is a writer from Ohio with a background in history, education and philosophy. He has led multiple conservative groups and is dedicated to the principles of free speech, privacy and peace.

Reporter Catches Extremely Disturbing Behavior from Linda Sarsour’s Apparent Bodyguard


Reported By Malachi Bailey | Published March 7, 2019 at 1:02pm

Linda Sarsour, a far-left activist and known anti-Semite, turned her bodyguard on a reporter who asked about Israel’s right to exist at Sarsour’s rally for Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar. Sarsour’s rally for Omar, who is known for her anti-Semitic tweets about “hook-nosed Jews,” was held in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. Like the freshman congresswoman, Sarsour is notoriously anti-Semitic and known to have ties to radical Islamic groups.

And of course, Sarsour is a supporter of the “one-state solution” in the Middle East, which means the far-left activist wants to get rid of the Jewish state.

Considering Sarsour’s notoriety as founder of the Women’s March movement, known anti-Semitism and outspoken support for Omar, it makes sense why a reporter would confront her about her radical stance on Israel.

“Linda, do you believe the state of Israel has a right to exist?” a reporter asked Sarsour on Wednesday.

“We’ll answer questions later after the press conference,” Sarsour said. “I’ll be happy to answer them.”

The reporter patiently waited until after the press conference, but Sarsour’s apparent bodyguards blocked him from asking questions. As the bodyguards stopped the reporter from confronting Sarsour, he asked, “Why are you guys pushing me here?” The bodyguard repeatedly asked the reporter, “Why are you here?” and brought up anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jewish money. “Do you work for Israel? How much do you get paid? Do they pay you enough?” the bodyguard angrily asked.

The bodyguard’s comments were eerily similar to the comments made about Jewish “lobbyists” from Omar last month.

This is what the face of the new Democratic Party looks like; a growing portion of Democrats now support radical Islam and have a disdain for Jewish people. And don’t be tricked into thinking it’s only a few radicals on the left. Omar isn’t only supported by Sarsour — the representative also has the backing of her freshman colleague, Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Ocasio-Cortez, who is immensely popular in far-left circles, made it clear that she isn’t bothered by Omar’s anti-Semitism. Omar and Ocasio-Cortez might not publicly support radicals like Sarsour, but they definitely have the support of radicals, and that’s evidence enough of the representatives’ extremist dog whistling.

Democrats should be concerned because their party is being taken over by a coalition of extreme socialists and radical Islam sympathizers.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Malachi Bailey is a writer from the Midwest with a background in history, education and philosophy. He has led multiple conservative groups and is dedicated to the principles of free speech, privacy and peace.

The Modern Democratic Party: 2020 Candidate Throws Support Behind ‘Third Gender’ at Federal Level


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | Published February 17, 2019 at 10:36am

Presidential races never shape up the way you think they’re going to. For instance, at this moment in time back in 2015, we were all talking about how Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio were going to be duking it out for the Republican nomination.

That being said, the official wisdom for the Democrat nomination in 2020 is that Joe Biden will be sucking up all the air in the establishment and Bernie Sanders will have solidified the socialist segment of the party, so the key is staking out a position somewhere on the not-quite-socialist identity politics left.

The problem is that’s a crowded market segment. Democrat Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand — all of whom fit in that political niche — have already declared their intentions to run. And then there’s Beto O’Rourke — an insanely rich, insanely privileged white guy the Democrats still seem to believe is an identity politics hero because he livestreams himself skateboarding an awful lot, or something — who will probably end up in the race, too.

How, then, to differentiate one’s brand in such a crowded field?

Elizabeth Warren has called for an ultra-millionaire tax which is probably unconstitutional and a bad idea even if it weren’t.

Kamala Harris seems to be on board for doing something about legalizing marijuana at the national level, telling interviewers, according to Politico, that “it gives a lot of people joy. And we need more joy.”

Cory Booker has been talking about his vegan diet as if it were an actual campaign issue, even though he swears “whatever you eat is a very personal decision and everybody should what eat what they want to eat.”

So, taxing the heck out of the rich is taken. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris have both taken plant advocacy off the table, albeit in very different ways. What’s left for Kirsten Gillibrand?

Well, how about endorsing the legal recognition of a third gender classification at the federal level?

“New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a 2020 candidate, endorsed federal implementation of a third gender listing for Americans who identify as non-binary. Speaking at an LGBTQ-focused meet and greet in New Hampshire on Friday, Gillibrand emphatically said ‘yes’ about recognizing ‘X’ as a third gender marker,” CBS News reported.

“Palana Belken, a transgender woman and organizer for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, asked Gillibrand the question and applauded her quick answer.”

The ball’s in your court now, Kamala.

The “X” identification is currently available in a number of states as well as individual cities, but no move has been made to implement it on a federal level.

“Belken said her question originated from the efforts of New Hampshire State Rep. Gerri Cannon, a transgender lawmaker who recently introduced two similar identification bills at the state level to present this third option on birth certificates and driver’s licenses,” CBS News continued.

Cannon believes federal recognition is important because of confusion involving what the “X” means when traveling in other states.

“Right now, especially non-binary people, when they go to one state to another, some state trooper may take a look at a license with an ‘X’ on it and go, ‘What is this?’” Cannon said.

First, let’s state the obvious: There’s not a particularly large body of science that proves identifying as non-binary is in any way biological. While there’s an incredibly small number of individuals who are born with intersex traits, that’s definitely not what this is addressing. Instead, this is mostly about individuals who identify as a sex different from the one they were born — people who claim they’re demigender, third-gender, genderfluid, whatever the case may be. Nobody particularly has to care about this third-gender identification in almost any other aspect of life. When dealing with the government, however, these individuals are either biologically male or female. Putting an X on their driver’s license doesn’t change this very salient fact.

But that isn’t really the point, is it? For the segment of the Democrat field that Sen. Gillibrand finds herself in, the next few months will look increasingly like a leftist political version of “Survivor.”

If all of the aforementioned candidates stay in the race, you’re pretty much guaranteed to see a Biden-Sanders showdown with almost none of these individuals having a shot.

As The Hiill reported Friday, a new poll by the Morning Consult shows that those two men are not only the most popular potential Democratic contenders for 2020 (29 percent of Democrats for Biden, 22 percent for Sanders), but each is backed by the other’s supporters as a second choice. That means they have support that’s both wide and deep.

So, for one of the non-Biden-Sanders candidates to be viable, the others need to get voted off the island. If you want immunity, you need to get yourself noticed, and the best way to do that is conspicuously getting behind something the left will love. Massive taxes! Lettuce! Hippie lettuce! A third gender!

If your pet issue doesn’t catch on, well, the tribe has spoken.

All of this nonsense will either be inconsequential to or deleterious for most of us, mind you. In Gillibrand’s case, I don’t think that individuals who choose to identify as something other than a man or a woman are going to be profoundly validated by seeing an “X” on their driver’s license. In the meantime, we’ll have committed our government to supporting an unscientific-yet-trendy gender movement.

Perhaps most telling is the fact that this idea would have been considered insanely radical just five years ago.

Now we have Gillibrand — arguably the most vanilla of the candidates jockeying to be the not-Biden-not-Sanders torch-bearer — supporting this without a second thought.  In fact, if any Democratic candidates disagreed with this, you can imagine the political firestorm they’d find themselves in. Such is the state of the Democrats in 2019, a party which is more concerned with third genders than the security of the United States.

With all of this posturing, I can’t wait to see what the next few weeks bring.

Kamala Harris livestreaming herself smoking some “joy?” Cory Booker announcing his support for massive kale subsidies, calling it the Very Green New Deal? Beto O’Rourke entering the race and declaring, in a Vermin Supreme-esque move, that he’s going to give everyone a free skateboard? The imagination reels at the possibilities.

Presidential races are unpredictable, of course, and I can’t tell you who the winner will be, but  among the losers will be a) common sense and b) America.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Charlie Daniels Calls Out Leftist Hypocrisy over All-White Wardrobe: Believe All Women, Except Fairfax Accuser


Reported By Malachi Bailey | February 6, 2019 at 12:12pm

Country music legend Charlie Daniels slammed Democratic women for wearing white to Tuesday night’s State of the Union address to show support for women while their party is noticeably silent about a high-profile sexual assault accusation against Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax.

And he didn’t mince words.

“Democrat women are wearing white to the State of the Union address to signify support for ALL women (Except for the one who is accusing Lt Governor Fairfax of sexual harassment),” Daniels tweeted Tuesday night.

Many female Democratic members of Congress, including far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, wore white as a way to show solidarity on “women’s issues,” according to CNN. And while white was the color of the suffragette movement that won the right to vote for women in 1920, Democrats made it clear that the white on Tuesday applied went much further than gaining women the franchise a century ago.

“I’m looking forward to wearing suffragette white to #SOTU next week with all @HouseDemWomen!” Florida Rep. Lois Frankel wrote in a Twitter post last week. “We’ll honor all those who came before us and send a message of solidarity that we’re not going back on our hard-earned rights.”

But as Daniels pointed out, the bold statement of “solidarity” from the white attire contrasted sharply with the same women’s deafening silence regarding the allegation against Fairfax.

Virginia is currently in the midst of a political crisis as Democrats try to distance themselves from Gov. Ralph Northam, who found himself embroiled in two controversies last week. In a radio interview on Jan. 30, Northam hinted at supporting post-birth abortion, a position that disgusted and infuriated members of the pro-life movement.

But Democrats are more angry about a racist photo from Northam’s medical school yearbook from 1984. With Northam’s relationship with Democrats in tatters, the party seemed poised to throw its support behind Fairfax if Northam eventually steps down. Unfortunately for Democrats, the lieutenant governor is currently facing an accusation from a woman who claims he sexually assaulted her at the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

Fairfax, however, maintains the encounter was consensual. Virginia Democrats have been cautious at best about the accusation.

“The facts here are still being determined. Every individual deserves the opportunity to be heard, and we respect anyone who comes forward to share their story,” the state’s Democratic lawmakers said in a brief statement Tuesday.

“Governor Northam must end this chapter immediately, step down, and let Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax heal Virginia’s wounds and move us forward.”

We still haven’t heard the kind of widespread condemnation Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh received when he faced allegations that were undoubtedly less credible.

Quentin Kidd, director of the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University, told The Washington Post that the silence from Democrats is “deafening.”

“They may be thinking, ‘We don’t want to throw our lieutenant governor under the bus while we’re also trying to throw our governor out of office,’” he said. “Republicans are probably eating all the popcorn they can find right now. It’s quite a show.”

To be clear, Fairfax deserves due process, but that’s not a principle that Democrats care about when Republicans are accused. Democrats are supposed to “believe all women,” but it’s not a good look when they selectively believe women based on politics.

Daniels had a point. For a party that supposedly supports women, Democrats are awfully silent about Fairfax’s troubling accusation.

ABOUT THE REPORTER:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Malachi Bailey is a writer from the Midwest with a background in history, education and philosophy. He has led multiple conservative groups and is dedicated to the principles of free speech, privacy and peace.

Same Day Democrat Pushed Late-Term Abortion Bill, She Also Pushed Bill To Save Caterpillars


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | February 1, 2019 at 10:04am

While Gov. Ralph Northam is the Democrat most closely associated with the controversy regarding the Virginia abortion bill which would allow a child to be killed up until more or less the moment of birth, someone had to come up with the legislation. That someone is Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran, who introduced HB 2491, “Abortion; eliminate certain requirements.”

According to the summary, the bill “eliminates the requirement that an abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester be performed in a hospital. The bill eliminates all the procedures and processes, including the performance of an ultrasound, required to effect a woman’s informed written consent to the performance of an abortion; however, the bill does not change the requirement that a woman’s informed written consent be first obtained.

“The bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman’s death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman’s health would be substantial and irremediable,” it continues.

“The bill also removes language classifying facilities that perform five or more first-trimester abortions per month as hospitals for the purpose of complying with regulations establishing minimum standards for hospitals.”

That’s some extremely anti-life stuff. However, on the same day, it’s worth pointing out she did introduce a pro-life bill. I mean, provided that you’re a caterpillar.

TRENDING: Watch Tucker Segment Showing Off Walls Around the World that Democrats Actually Support

On Jan. 9 — the same day that the radical abortion bill was introduced — Tran also introduced HB 2495, which “prohibits localities from spraying pesticides intended to suppress an infestation of the fall cankerworm during the period between March 1 and August 1.”

Well, thank God we’re looking out for the cankerworm, a caterpillar which becomes a gypsy moth.

Tran, by the way, has gotten off of social media now that the controversy over her bill has hit; according to The Daily Caller, she deleted her accounts once the abortion bill became a major issue.

The Virginia GOP, meanwhile, had this to say about it:

Do you think the Democratic Party has become the party of abortion?

Yes No

Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
You’re logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out.
The great irony of this is that even though this contentious bill may have made Tran decide on radio silence, it didn’t actually receive much play in the media until Gov. Northam decided to go above and beyond what she had proposed.

“When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of the mother, with the consent of physicians, more than one physician by the way, and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus which is non-viable,” Northam said.

“So in this particular example, if the mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.”

So  Gov. Northam appears to be proposing infanticide. (Northam’s people insisted the governor wasn’t talking about termination as an option, something that the context doesn’t support.) Tran believes that killing a baby a few minutes before birth is all right but a few minutes after birth would be murderous.

And she believes caterpillars ought to be protected, too. Don’t forget that.

ABOUT THE REPORTER:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Dems AWOL as Last Week Marked 153 Years Since the GOP Outlawed Slavery Forever


Reported By Cillian Zeal | December 10, 2018 at 9:03am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/dems-awol-last-week-marked-153-years-since-gop-outlawed-slavery-forever/

The Lincoln Memorial

The Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. (KSB / Shutterstock)

It’s a fairly short piece of law, too: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction,” the amendment reads.

It also gives Congress the power to enforce the law.

Now, the traditional anniversary of the end of slavery, at least in the African-American community, is Juneteenth — June 19, the date in 1865 when Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger of the Union Army read the Emancipation Proclamation to slaves in Galveston, Texas. However, when the 13th Amendment celebrated its 153rd birthday on Dec. 6, it didn’t get a whole lot of mention. And what definitely didn’t get mentioned is that it wouldn’t exist if Democrats had their way.

As Ourdocuments.gov notes, “The 13th Amendment was passed at the end of the Civil War before the Southern states had been restored to the Union and should have easily passed the Congress.

“Although the Senate passed it in April 1864, the House did not. At that point, Lincoln took an active role to ensure passage through Congress. He insisted that passage of the 13th Amendment be added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming presidential elections. His efforts met with success when the House passed the bill in January 1865 with a vote of 119–56.”

Indeed, it had to be ratified before the Southern states rejoined the union. The reason is that the Democrats considered Dixie their own personal fiefdom up until the late 1960s. Jim Crow laws, segregated schools, the KKK, massive resistance, eugenics — all of these things were brought to you by the Democratic Party and vigorously fought by the Republicans.

But, you say, what about the “great switch?” That’s when the Democrats supposedly became the party of racial justice, all put into motion to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Well, yes, about that. The bill couldn’t have passed without Republican support.

Even the U.K. Guardian, of all sources, notes that “80 percent of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.”

The vote was taken during the “Solid South” era, where almost every elected official below the Mason-Dixon was a Democrat. Only eight out of 102 representatives from the former Confederacy voted for the bill in the House and one of 22 voted for it in the Senate.

Yet, the fact that the South is now pretty solidly Republican always brings a asking from Democrats, who constantly mistake the new South — the product of economic growth and migration — with the old South they provided over for so many years.

They lament the racism they so successfully fomented for years, as if their party played no role in it. They’ve washed their hands clean. As “penance,” they’ve taken on a different form of identity politics which doesn’t involve standing in the schoolhouse door but is every bit as pernicious.

That’s why the 13th Amendment ought to be celebrated a bit more, we think. Not only did it officially end slavery and passed without Democratic support, it had to be passed before the Southern Democrats could rejoin the Union, lest they continue one of the most evil practices in the history of this planet.

The Democrats have always been the party of oppression and identity politics, whether it be Dec. 6, 1865 or Dec. 6, 2018. If only America would remember that. The Democrats would certainly prefer you didn’t.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary

More Info Recent Posts

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech. Exercising it there under his given name could put him in danger.

Election Judge Sees Fraud 7 Ft Away. Reports It. Dems Demand She Be Removed: Report


Reported By Kara Pendleton | November 12, 2018 at 3:38am

While “all eyes” are on Florida amidst accusations of potential election fraud, there may have been something fishy going on in St. Clair County, Illinois. According to The Gateway Pundit, this would not be the first time something like this has happened, either.

Peggy A. Hubbard posted a multi-tweet thread explaining what happened in the 2018 midterm elections, noting that she was an election judge. She began describing some of what she witnessed as she watched the polling station.

But that wasn’t all she saw.

Not only is it shocking that anyone would allow this, but it’s also shocking that someone would get in such a state before then going to vote.

Hubbard noted that she also caught a city council member just feet away doing no good. But it was Hubbard taking flack.

She also elaborated further on how she put a stop to what she witnessed. It appears that these actions may have led to the complaints filed against her and her removal as an election judge being sought.

Hubbard has also posted about other problems with the election in her state. These are from 2016.

Hubbard is no stranger to standing up for what she believes in or in being attacked for it. In 2015, she “compared the black community’s reaction to the shooting of Mansur Ball-Bey in North St. Louis outside a crack house with the shooting death of 9 year-old Jamyla Bolden in Ferguson,” according to The Gateway Pundit.

Her video rant went viral. And the typical name-calling ensued, including her being referred to as an “Uncle Tom.”

Service isn’t new to Hubbard, either. She is a veteran who served aboard the USS SAMUEL GOMPERS AD-37.

Hubbard’s Twitter feed is filled with hard-hitting posts about the left and Democrat shenanigans. She has no problem speaking out against the Democrat Plantation” and “Black Lives Matter,” contrary to what blacks in America are expected to do.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Specializing in news, politics and human interest stories, Kara Pendleton has been a professional writer and author since 2002. One of her proudest professional moments was landing an interview that even mainstream media couldn’t get.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: